IAPE Evidence Blog

The Hous­ton Chron­i­cle
BYLINE: By CINDY HORSWELL, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Cleve­land, OH

Ex-Cleveland law­man named in doc­u­ments; arms found at gun shop

GUNS: Trans­fer not approved

Fed­eral author­i­ties are inves­ti­gat­ing whether more than 500 weapons miss­ing from the Cleve­land Police Department’s evi­dence room were part of an ille­gal firearms-trafficking scheme.

Court doc­u­ments also con­nect Lib­erty County sheriff’s Capt. Harold Kel­ley and oth­ers to the gun-trafficking alle­ga­tions. Kel­ley pre­vi­ously served as cus­to­dian of the evi­dence room at the Cleve­land Police Depart­ment and had con­trol over one of only two keys to the locked room.

The other key was held by then Assis­tant Cleve­land Police Chief Henry Pat­ter­son. When Pat­ter­son was elected sher­iff in 2009, Kel­ley went to work as a cap­tain for the new sher­iff. The guns were dis­cov­ered miss­ing in Jan­u­ary 2009 dur­ing an inven­tory taken after Kel­ley departed.

The U.S. Bureau of Alco­hol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explo­sives declined to dis­cuss the probe. “It’s an ongo­ing inves­ti­ga­tion, and we can’t com­ment,” said Franceska Perot, the bureau’s spokes­woman in Houston.

Yet, a sworn affi­davit by ATF agent Alex Johny filed in Decem­ber to obtain a search war­rant for a gun shop, Sportsman’s Out­let and Indoor Range in Hum­ble, links Kel­ley to the miss­ing guns.

The affi­davit states the gun shop owner, Gary Lee, reported that Kel­ley had given him guns from 2007 to 2008 that were sup­posed to be destroyed in exchange for ammu­ni­tion, tar­gets and firearm-cleaning supplies.

112 weapons seized

As a result of the search in Decem­ber, author­i­ties con­fis­cated 112 of the con­tra­band firearms that Lee reported receiv­ing from Kelley.

Kel­ley referred all ques­tions to his Hous­ton attor­ney, Jack Zimmermann.

“These are mere alle­ga­tions unac­com­pa­nied by any proof,” said Zim­mer­mann. “Kel­ley is a well-respected long­time peace offi­cer, who deserves the ben­e­fit of the doubt. No charges are filed.”

Lee did not return phone calls. He serves as a Lib­erty County reserve deputy, said Capt. Steve Greene with the Lib­erty County Sheriff’s Office.

Accord­ing to the affi­davit, Cleveland’s police chief at that time, Ike Hines, stated he never gave per­mis­sion for any weapons to be taken to the gun shop.

Hines had been approached by Pat­ter­son and oth­ers who sug­gested Cleveland’s con­tra­band firearms could be sold to gen­er­ate funds for the depart­ment, the affi­davit said.

Hines never autho­rized the trans­fer or dis­posal of any of the weapons, the affi­davit said. How­ever, Cleve­land Munic­i­pal Mag­is­trate Bob Steely acknowl­edged sign­ing sev­eral “destruc­tion orders” and had trusted Kel­ley to han­dle things prop­erly, accord­ing to the affidavit.

Listed as destroyed

Of the 112 firearms recov­ered from Lee, 98 had been listed by Kel­ley as destroyed, the affi­davit said. Mys­tery remains over what hap­pened to the other guns still miss­ing from the Cleve­land police evi­dence room. Among the miss­ing weapons are 12-gauge shot­guns, Glock pis­tols and .357 revolvers.

The affi­davit also notes that the gun shop’s log books on the acqui­si­tion and dis­po­si­tion of these weapons were sketchy. For some, there were no records at all, the affi­davit said.

Dur­ing this time, Kel­ley also received 26 guns from Lee for which there were no records found to doc­u­ment the trans­fer of such a large cache of weapons, the affi­davit said.

The Texas Rangers, who inves­ti­gated the miss­ing weapons before ATF took over, thought turn­ing con­tra­band weapons over to a gun shop looked “sus­pi­cious and irreg­u­lar,” the affi­davit said.

“Texas law enforce­ment agen­cies gen­er­ally attend to the phys­i­cal destruc­tion of con­tra­band firearms them­selves … through the use of smelters, crush­ing devices and shred­ding machines,” said the affi­davit, adding that the process is usu­ally wit­nessed by officers.

cindy.horswell@chron.com

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment“
www.IAPE.org

The Colum­bus Dis­patch (Ohio)
BYLINE: Mary Beth Lane, mlane@dispatch.com, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Fayette County, OH

Cash gone from evi­dence room

Fayette County Sher­iff Ver­non Stan­forth said he is adding a sur­veil­lance cam­era to his prop­erty room and enlist­ing a spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor to inves­ti­gate after learn­ing that money seized in a crim­i­nal case is missing.

Stan­forth and county Pros­e­cu­tor David Ben­der would not say how much money is missing.

Ben­der has sought a spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor from the state attor­ney general’s office to con­duct inter­nal and crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions into the miss­ing money. Detec­tives have been pro­vided from the sheriff’s offices in Franklin and Ross coun­ties to help in the inves­ti­ga­tions, Stan­forth said in a news release yesterday.

The inves­ti­ga­tions will be con­ducted sep­a­rately, and the spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor might, after review­ing their results, present evi­dence to a grand jury, the sher­iff said.

The dis­ap­pear­ance was dis­cov­ered when a deputy retrieved the case file for trial prepa­ra­tion, he said.

Stan­forth said he has ordered reviews of all crim­i­nal cases involv­ing con­fis­cated money and the pro­ce­dures his office uses. Any rec­om­mended changes will be made promptly, he said.

He also has ordered the instal­la­tion of a 24-hour, digital-recording sur­veil­lance cam­era in the prop­erty room, where evi­dence is stored.

Stan­forth said no pub­lic money is miss­ing. The miss­ing money was con­fis­cated in a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion and was being held for trial. After court cases con­clude, for­feited money goes into a spe­cial fund for law enforce­ment and investigations.

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment“
www.IAPE.org

recordherald.com
BYLINE: Ryan Carter, Staff Writer
Link to Article

Fayette County, OH

Fayette County Sher­iff Ver­non Stan­forth has ini­ti­ated an inves­ti­ga­tion of his own office after learn­ing some of the money con­fis­cated by his deputies in a crim­i­nal case appears to be miss­ing from the office.

“I have ini­ti­ated an inter­nal and crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion into a dis­crep­ancy of monies in a case of a pend­ing crim­i­nal trial,” Stan­forth said. Stan­forth came to the Record-Herald offices Wednes­day to release the infor­ma­tion. He said he was recently noti­fied by one of his deputies of the dis­crep­ancy when the deputy retrieved the case file in prepa­ra­tion for a trial.

Stan­forth declined to com­ment on the specifics of the crim­i­nal case.

“The money was con­fis­cated dur­ing a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion and is sub­ject to for­fei­ture by the courts,” he said.

Infor­ma­tion about the dis­crep­ancy was also pre­sented to Fayette County Pros­e­cu­tor David Ben­der, who has requested the assis­tance of a spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor from the Ohio Attor­ney General’s Office to over­see the inves­ti­ga­tion. Detec­tives from Franklin and Ross county sheriff’s offices will also be used to assist the spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor in the inter­nal and crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions, accord­ing to Stanforth.

“The inter­nal and crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions will be con­ducted sep­a­rately and inde­pen­dent of the other,” Stan­forth said. “The find­ings of each will be pre­sented to the spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor for review and for pre­sen­ta­tion to a grand jury if the spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor deems it nec­es­sary based on the out­come of the investigation.”

Stan­forth said that two inves­ti­ga­tions is the best method to use. “There are dif­fer­ent lev­els of pro­to­col,” he said. “The inves­ti­ga­tion will look at who would have had access to the money. If the inves­ti­ga­tion points to an employee of the sheriff’s office, and I do not know that it will, then that employee must answer our ques­tions dur­ing an inter­nal inves­ti­ga­tion. But in a crim­i­nal case, Miranda rights would come into play for that person.”

Stan­forth has also ordered a review of all crim­i­nal cases involv­ing the con­fis­ca­tion of money.

“A review of pro­ce­dures has also been ordered with rec­om­mended mod­i­fi­ca­tions to be promptly imple­mented,” he said. The area used for evi­dence stor­age at the sheriff’s office is to be mod­i­fied, includ­ing the instal­la­tion of a 24-hour dig­i­tal record­ing sur­veil­lance cam­era to mon­i­tor the prop­erty room.

All pub­lic money is accounted for and is not part of the inves­ti­ga­tion, accord­ing to Stanforth.

For­fei­ture money is taken from crim­i­nal sus­pects and can be ordered by a judge to ulti­mately be placed in spe­cial funds estab­lished by the county audi­tor to be appro­pri­ated by the county com­mis­sion­ers for use in other crim­i­nal investigations.

“Although the dis­crep­ancy does not involve tax­payer money, we are stew­ards of all monies entrusted us and we have an oblig­a­tion to ensure the monies are accounted for at all times,” said Stan­forth. “Mr. Ben­der and I have asked for an inde­pen­dent review and will pur­sue what ever course of action is rec­om­mended from that review.”

There is no timetable on the two inves­ti­ga­tions. “It could take one month, two months or even longer,” Stan­forth said.

No more infor­ma­tion will be released about the inves­ti­ga­tions until they are completed.

- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — -
Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for Prop­erty and Evi­dence
“Law Enforce­ment Serv­ing the Needs of Law Enforce­ment“
www.IAPE.org